David M. Rogers

The court determined whether the plaintiff's motor vehicle policy was properly terminated by Aviva Canada Inc. The issue stemmed from insufficient funds in the insured's bank account to cover a pre-authorized premium and service charge.

The court found that Aviva complied with the policy by attempting to withdraw funds on the due date, and the shortfall was due to the bank's processing schedule (weekend/holiday) and the insured's failure to maintain sufficient funds.

Consequently, the policy was deemed properly terminated by Aviva.

Insurers moved for summary judgment dismissing claims against them on the basis that an automobile insurance policy had been properly terminated prior to an accident involving an uninsured motorist.

The court held that the insurer complied with the statutory requirements for delivery of a notice of cancellation under s. 12 of the Statutory Conditions – Automobile Insurance, as the notice was sent by registered mail to the insured’s correct address.

However, a genuine issue requiring trial remained regarding compliance with s. 11 governing effective termination, specifically whether the insurer’s attempted withdrawal of double the monthly premium created the payment default that triggered cancellation.

The court ordered production of banking records to determine whether sufficient funds existed to cover the agreed monthly premium and service charge.

Summary judgment was granted in part and the remaining issue was adjourned pending further evidence.

The applicant sought a declaration that its commercial general liability insurer was obliged to indemnify it for amounts paid in settlement of personal injury claims arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a truck and attached trailer.

The applicant argued that concurrent causes existed, including negligent attachment of the trailer and negligent operation of the vehicle, triggering coverage under the CGL policy and a non‑owned automobile endorsement.

The court held that the alleged negligence arose from the ordinary use or operation of an automobile, including attaching and towing a trailer, and therefore fell within the policy’s automobile exclusion.

The court further found that no independent non‑automobile cause of liability existed and that the non‑owned automobile endorsement did not apply.

The application for indemnity was dismissed.